|



Antiwar and pro environmental to educate people on the cover ups going on in the nuclear radiation field. Political, social and economic news to be used to educate the general public. Aimed to stimulate activism. Copper mining/uranium; hydrofracking; metane hydrate; depleted uranium weaponry; cellphone and other handy radiations; body scanners, et al, are covered.
|



Newsworks is reporting that “thousands of gallons” – 13,000 to be precisely in the ballpark – of hydrofracking fluid (containing a nice cocktail of salt and toxins) have spilled from a well in North Central PA and the ground water in Lycoming County is as good as polluted. The site has already had several violations and it wasn’t until a follow-up visit that Department of Environmental Protection inspector actually found the spill. A gas valve had…been left open.A fence also has been installed to prevent a neighbor’s cattle from grazing in the impacted area of the pasture.DEP inspectors have collected samples of nearby soil samples and surface water. Initial field meter readings showed elevated levels of conductivity and salinity in the spring and unnamed tributary.Conductivity measures water’s ability to carry an electric current, while salinity measures the dissolved salt content in water. Elevated levels of both are indications that spilled fracking fluid is present.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation analyzed wastewater in several wells in the state and found insanely high levels of radium-226, thousands of times the limit that is safe to drink. Radium-226 is a highly radioactive chemical that can lead to lung and bone cancer, among other diseases. When you take into consideration that the Delaware River and Schuylkill River watersheds are both located near the Shale, these findings are even more alarming. The New York City DEP concluded that drilling the Shale “presents potential risks to public health and would be expected to compromise the City’s ability to protect the watershed and continued, cost-effective provision of a high purity water supply.”

effects of low level radiation does not exist and will probably not be obtainable for a long time. Obtaining unequivocal evidence would require ...
Radiation Doses
The term radiation means energy propagating in the form of electromagnetic
waves or photons, or in the form of subatomic particles. Ionizing
radiation is radiation of sufficiently high energy to cause — in the medium
through which it passes — the production of pairs of ions, i.e. of atoms or
groups of atoms that have either lost or gained one or more electrons to
become positively or negatively charged, and the corresponding complementary
electrons. For biological effects, the medium in which ion pairs are
produced is biological material, more specifically cellular material.
The term radiation (absorbed) dose generally means the amount of
energy which is absorbed from ionizing radiation by a unit mass of material.
This quantity is expressed in unit energy per unit mass, that is in joules per
kilogram, which takes the special name gray (Gy); [1 Gy = 1000 milligray
(mGy)]. For radiation protection purposes, the absorbed dose is weighted to
take account of the effectiveness of different radiation types and the radiosensitivity
of various organs and tissues. The resulting quantity is termed
effective dose, and its unit sievert (Sv) [ISv = 1000 millisievert (mSv)]; for
photons in the intermediate energy range, 1 mGy is approximately equal to
1 mSv.
The term low radiation dose is used to mean a radiation dose lower than
designated levels; sometimes it is also informally used to mean a low dose
rate, i.e. low dose per unit time. In specialized radiobiological forums, low
radiation dose (and dose rate) refers to exposures for which it is very unlikely
that more than one event of energy absorption from radiation will occur in
the critical parts of a cell (and damage it) within the time during which repair
mechanisms in the cell can operate. Thus, UNSCEAR concluded that low
radiation dose refers to a total dose of less than 200 mSv and dose rates below
, 0.1 mSv per minute (which in fact is a very high dose rate of around 5000
mSv per annum).
For the non-specialized public, low radiation doses are deemed to
correspond to levels similar to those from, for instance, natural background
exposure or some very common radiation exposures such as those arising
during air travel. Natural background exposure varies widely around the
world. Some "normal" [and "elevated"] values of annual dose rates are as
follows: for cosmic rays, 0.38 mSv [2.0 mSv]; for terrestrial radiation 0.43
mSv [4.3 mSv]; and for exposure to radon, 1.2 mSv [10 mSv]; leading to an
average total of around 2.4 mSv per annum. The average annual dose for
very frequent flyers (such as aircrew) is around 2.5 mSv. These dose rate
levels of a few mSv per annum are expected to deliver, during a lifetime,
doses of above around 100 mSv, which are of the order
of magnitude of the low radiation doses designated by UNSCEAR."
Adults may be safe, but what are the effects on youngsters exposed to radiation?
Tuesday September 16,2008
WITH wireless internet and mobile phones now in constant use in our schools and homes, TESSA THOMAS asks if youngsters are being exposed to hazardously high levels of radiation.
When Leah Homan is anywhere near a phone mast, her body alerts her – even before the mast comes into view.
“I get a sort of tingling and dizziness and sometimes a headache and then I know there’s one not far away.”
Leah, 12, is sensitive to the radiation from masts and other mobile telecommunications equipment. When she was two, a tumour was found around one of her kidneys. Fortunately it was discovered in time and removed.
Her mother Jackie feared that a phone mast close to their home in Sefton, Liverpool, may have been to blame, although this cannot be proven.
Even though Leah made a full recovery, as a toddler she was restless and later had difficulty sleeping and concentrating at primary school, where she needed extra help to compensate for her attention problems.
She still suffers intermittent insomnia, brain fog, headaches and the familiar tingling, which is worse when she’s near a computer and the wireless router is on.
In a world where most people are now close to a mobile mast or wi-fi network and live normal lives, such a reaction seems surprising. But more children are becoming sensitive to electromagnetic emissions from telecoms equipment.
And the number is set to increase inexorably, says pathologist Dr George Carlo of the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, who spoke at a recent Radiation Research Trust conference
Information carrying radio waves are everywhere – from wireless computers, cordless phones, mobile phones and masts. At least half of all primary schools and three-quarters of secondary schools in the UK now have wi-fi.
According to Dr Carlo, mobile telecommunications were launched without enough research to assess the risks to health and with little awareness of the extent to which children would be using the technology.
There are guidelines for safe exposure to emissions, implemented in the UK through the Health Protection Agency (HPA), but there are several problems. First, they take into account only the risk of damage caused by the body being heated up by the emissions. By contrast, the effects may be deep inside the tissue and cannot be felt.
Second, their upper “safe” limit is considerably higher than that in several other countries – 10 times as high as in Russia.
Also, the limits were based on the effect on a healthy adult of a half-hour exposure. Children not only spend much longer than anyone anticipated in front of laptops or with a mobile glued to their ear but have a different biological make-up that makes them more vulnerable.
“They have thinner skulls so the radio waves can penetrate more readily,” explains Dr Carlo. “A greater percentage of their bodies are water and they have a higher proportion of ions in their interstitial fluids, both of which increase absorption of radio waves. Also, their cells are dividing, making them more vulnerable to genetic damage.”
Symptoms include fatigue, sleep problems, tingling, neck pain, dizziness, headaches and nausea. Sceptics say there is no proof and these complaints could have many causes.
One study, reported in the British Medical Journal in 2006, concluded that electromagnetic sensitivity could be psychological. James Rubin and his team at the Institute of Psychiatry found that when people who said they were sensitive to radio waves were tested with real or sham waves, they were as likely to say that the dummy waves caused a headache.
“It doesn’t mean that their headaches were any less real but it did mean that they weren’t directly connected with the assumed cause,” says Rubin.
However, it is worth noting that the study was partly funded by mobile phone companies. A lot of the other symptoms of electromagnetic sensitivity – digestive problems, depression, memory loss – have a compound effect. This means that the longer the exposure goes on, the worse the problems are likely to get. “No one has any idea what chronic long-term exposure will do to children,” says Dr Carlo.
Some schools have decided against taking any risk and removed their wireless networks. The head of Ballinderry Primary School in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, Ian Thomson, announced recently that “the advantages of wi-fi seemed to be outweighed by the risks”, so he discontinued it.
What is worrying, says Dr Michael Kundi, head of environmental health at Vienna University, is that while children are more vulnerable than adults, there is no official threshold for emissions indoors – which is where youngsters are most often in the line of fire.
“Wi-fi may be limited in its power but that doesn’t mean it is safe for children. We have no evidence of that yet,” he says, adding that there are ways to configure networks in the classroom to limit emissions but few teachers know about them.
Although other countries – including Israel and Italy – are adopting lower exposure limits, the HPA says there is still insufficient evidence to issue separate guidelines for children.